The role of commander in chief is clearly one of the president's most important jobs. But a presidential campaign provides voters little opportunity to evaluate how a candidate would handle that role, particularly if the candidate isn't an incumbent.

At the end of last year, during 3 1/2 hours of interviews over two days, I asked President Bush hundreds of detailed questions about his actions and decisions during the 16-month run-up to the war in Iraq. His answers were published in my book "Plan of Attack." Beginning on June 16, I had discussions and meetings with Sen. John Kerry's senior foreign policy, communications and political advisers about interviewing the senator to find out how he might have acted on Iraq -- to ask him what he would have done at certain key points. Senior Kerry advisers initially seemed positive about such an interview. One aide told me, "The short answer is yes, it's going to happen."

In August, I was talking with Kerry's scheduler about possible dates. On Sept. 1, Kerry began his intense criticism of Bush's decisions in the Iraq war, saying "I would've done almost everything differently." A few days later, I provided the Kerry campaign with a list of 22 possible questions based entirely on Bush's actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations. The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers.

Indecision on Iraq. Indecision on the terrorists. That is what Kerry has to offer. The Americans are in danger of letting the American Zapatero deceive them like they were deceived by the wobbly Jimmy Carter in 1976.

This should be a lesson learned for the Republicans. Even if you answer the Washington Post's questions on the most important issue of the election and your Democratic opponent doesn't, the Washington Post will still endorse the Democrat.

He would have started answering Woodward's 22 questions stating he was against the war and by question 22 he would have flipped flopped back to support for the war. There is no way he can remain consistent.

True but the WaPo still presents Woodward's stinging report on Kerry's evasion and stands it in contrast to the openess with which the President responded to Woodward and granted him extensive access. The WaPo is a paper people actualy read, rather than line cages or litter boxes. This article is a harmful to Kerry as WaPo's endorsement is helpful. Maybe even more so since it's up on Drudge right now.

Yeah, it's just the way the ball bounces when it comes to MSM. Kerry and the democRATS can do no wrong. He will get the endorsement of most liberal newspapers just because they HATE Bush so bad. But it doesn't matter how hard they try to swing the election towards Kerry, Bush is gonna win by a landslide! ;-]

The WaPo has already endorsed Kerry. They're more interested in being invited to state dinners and the increased social scene in Washington, than in staying alive or in the lives of the 50 million people who have been liberated. We all know where the WaPos stand.

28
posted on 10/24/2004 12:47:40 PM PDT
by McGavin999
(We have planted the seeds of democracy and watered them with our blood, now let freedom reign)

I think this article, with its list of things Bush did or did not do, is really intended to point out Bush's failures. It's just that the only way he could do this was to start out by appearing to be down on John Kerry for not accepting the interview. By the time the reader completes the piece, he'll be ranting about Bush, not Kerry.

Why the title Bob? You asking us? It's your job to find out, your the reporter remember. The American public have been trying to figure that one out for quite some time. What's wrong, no deep throat to help you out.

Woodward should have blasted skerry for not doing the interview but he completely let him off the hook, just like the rest of the MSM. Worthless.

At least Woodward brings a little bit of attention to this. John Kerry has gone through this election cycle without subjecting himself to anything more difficult than a Jon Stewart *ss-kissing interview for laughs. The press has ignored any vetting of this candidate: his 20+ year record in congress, his VVAW stuff, his many "plans", and all the lies he's been throwing about W.

I gotta plan! I gotta plan! I gotta plan! I gotta plan! I gotta plan! I gotta plan! I gotta plan! I gotta plan!I gotta plan! I gotta plan! I gotta plan! I gotta plan!I gotta plan! I gotta plan! I gotta plan! I gotta plan! I woulda formed a coalition. I could do it better.

In this time of change and uncertainty, we turn to new leadership that offers hope for a healing of the rift with our European allies and a new approach to the challenge to our security from Islamic militants. Mangy Yellow Dog alone can deliver on that promise.

Mangy Yellow Dog has the singular advantage of being completely non-threatening to our alienated allies, while still being able to bite back at any terrorists who might dare to attack.

Mangy Yellow Dog reminds us that there is ample room in our country for a new sense of humility... what America really needs now is not to take on the world alone. What we need is a pat on the head and a nice bath.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.